In 1988, Joseph Tainter published “The Collapse of Complex Societies,” in which he published a prescient and simple argument with far-reaching implications:
1) Social complexity is a problem-solving mechanism.
2) Complexity has costs in terms of energy.
3) Societies tend to add rather than subtract complexity when facing new problems.
4) Complexity often reaches a point of diminishing marginal returns in relation to its energy costs.
5) When societies reach this point of diminishing returns, they are vulnerable to collapse to a simpler level of social organization, which is an economizing reaction to problems that can no longer be solved by adding more complexity.
1/8
Your snarky anti-intellectualism used 0.0021% of Lemmy’s 10K character limit, and somehow added less value to the conversation than had you not made it at all.
I’ll be more clear. The posted essay is thoughtful and regardless of whether you agree with it, provides a lot to discuss and engage with. It’s usually better to say more with less, but if you need more to say more, that also has value.
Just because a comment is pithy does not make it less valuable than a fleshed-out statement. Lemmy is a platform that supports both by design.
Your statement give no useful information about the content of the essay. It doesn’t add to the on-topic conversation one might expect to find under the linked article. It doesn’t communicate who you are or why you might have had an adverse reaction to the essay. It only suggests you don’t like Mastodon because of its short message limit, but also paradoxically that you don’t like to read much.
Your snarky anti-intellectualism used 0.0021% of Lemmy’s 10K character limit, and somehow added less value to the conversation than had you not made it at all.
Well there are non-snarky comments available too that echo the same sentiment.
Also, your somehow even more snarky self-imploding mathematicalism is somehow saying the opposite of what you’re intending to say.
I’ll be more clear. The posted essay is thoughtful and regardless of whether you agree with it, provides a lot to discuss and engage with. It’s usually better to say more with less, but if you need more to say more, that also has value.
Just because a comment is pithy does not make it less valuable than a fleshed-out statement. Lemmy is a platform that supports both by design.
Your statement give no useful information about the content of the essay. It doesn’t add to the on-topic conversation one might expect to find under the linked article. It doesn’t communicate who you are or why you might have had an adverse reaction to the essay. It only suggests you don’t like Mastodon because of its short message limit, but also paradoxically that you don’t like to read much.